Subject: Re: DocBook function synopsis From: "Mitch C. Amiano" <amiamc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:56:07 -0400 |
Frank A. Christoph wrote: > I agree that "static" is misleading in this case; at the time, I couldn't > think of a better word to describe the opposite of "virtual." Actually, it > later occurred to me to use the a declaration like the following instead > > <!ENTITY % local.funcdef.attrib " > Class CDATA #IMPLIED > Abstract (abstract|concrete) concrete -- pure or not -- > Dispatch (dynamic|static) static -- virtual or not -- > Effect (functional|imperative) imperative -- const or not --"> > > which I think is clearer, since it avoids the eccentricities of C++ > terminology. Anyway, the specific names are still not decided. This would appear to be more flexible. For Effect, what about (sideeffectfree|unrestricted) or Mutability (immutable|mutable) which doesn't imply a style of coding. -- Mitch DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: DocBook function synopsis, Mitch C. Amiano | Thread | RE: DocBook function synopsis, Graydon Hoare |
Re: DSSSL -> Adept Screen FOSI, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: DocBook function synopsis, Graydon Hoare |
Month |